'A Sunni war against the occupation'

Sunday 15 February 2004 21.11 EST
First published on Sunday 15 February 2004 21.11 EST

Daily Times Editorial, Pakistan, February 15

"Pre-war [US] assessments ... that Iraqis would garland the US troops for ousting Saddam Hussein have proved highly erroneous ... Only [on Saturday], insurgents mounted another daring attack, which left more than 20 people dead. Earlier, two attacks ... claimed nearly a hundred lives ...

"The message is clear: the US is not welcome and anyone seen cooperating with the US will be targeted. The United Nations, the only hope, is reluctant to come in at this stage given previous attacks on its headquarters ... To top it, plans to hold elections might run aground ... Reports indicate the US troops are not looking for winning hearts and minds any more; they are trying to put down an insurgency that seems to be getting out of hand and claiming lives every day."

Sunday Mirror Editorial, February 15

"Iraq has been through the bloodiest week since the war officially ended 10 months ago. Amid the carnage that has become an everyday reality, 120 were killed and hundreds more injured in the past seven days ... The latest attacks, where the targets were Iraqis seen as 'collaborators' with coalition forces, underline the mess the country is in. Pulling the coalition troops out would risk a civil war."

Al-Akhbar Editorial, Egypt, February 15

"It is not fair to only accuse the Iraqi resistance [of the attacks]. Perhaps the resistance is responsible, but we cannot rule out that the bombings are planned by foreign sides for the purpose of damaging the [image] of the Iraqi resistance. The main reason for security deterioration in Iraq is the existence of foreign occupation forces on its land."

Fergal Keane Independent, February 14

"Should we regard these atrocities as a turning point? No ... They are the latest instalment in a very brutal lesson about the history of Iraq ... The US went in promising to pave the way for democracy. But the proponents of the war took too little time to consider what their vision of democracy would mean in Iraq, and they certainly gave scant thought to the implications of one person one vote for the minority Sunni population.

"What we are seeing now is partly a Sunni war against the American occupation but possibly the opening salvoes of an Iraqi civil war ... [This] would bring ruin to Iraq but to the Sunni in particular. At the same time as they condemn the brutality of the suicide bombings the coalition must be hoping that somewhere in the insurgent leadership there exists someone pragmatic enough to make a deal."

Los Angles Times Editorial, February 15

"Now, when the US is trying to disentangle itself from running Iraq on a day-to-day basis, suicide bombers have made the task of building a nation both more urgent and more difficult ... Yet the US-appointed Iraqi leaders working on a plan to move the country toward a more democratic independence must continue.

"The blueprint under discussion would create a transitional government and lead to a constitution and permanent government, perhaps by the end of next year ... A flaw in the plan is a proposed three-person presidency, expected to include a Shia, a Sunni and a Kurd. That idea has worked poorly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where a rotating presidency among Croats, Bosnian Serbs and Muslims has pre-served the divisions that triggered a brutal war."